The Canonical Gospels Have No Authority

[Esquilax]

their is a big gapping hole in this line of reasoning. The assumption being because we only have a written record of 2nd century involvement with the gospels that they must have orginated in the second century. This would be a valid conclusion IF our records of the first and second century church were any where near complete. They are not. It would be like someone 100 years from now going through all my posts, and proclaim that I never owned a 1967 Mustang or a 64 ranchero because in all my posting I never mention the mustang or ranchero.

Again this would be a logical conclusion if my threads here were a complete chronical of my life. However my work here does not center around my life, (even though I have shared personal experiences) and the work here does not include my two cars, which doesn't mean I never owned them. Like wise to point to a hole in a incomplete historical record is in this case an Arguement from silence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

Which produces fallacious reasoning/Faulty conclusions.

Does it bother anyone else that Drich's argument here, boiled down, is nothing more than: "Your argument would only make sense if we knew, but since we don't know, you must be wrong."

I mean, I get that the argument from silence is a thing, but the two things that come to my mind there is that if we had a lack of evidence for a thing we'd expect silence, and that once again a christian's position hinges solely on ignorance.